57 replies to this topic

[OJ191]

I like my UZL-2S.... can't remember (if I did, or even if it is possible..) but I think I dropped the SRM + machineguns for an autocannon.

Symmetry is nice but functionality is better.

Edited by OJ191, 12 May 2012 - 03:51 AM.

[Flawless]

I prefer Asymetrical designs to symetrical. It just looks better to me.

[Melissia]

Oh, and as for years, I'd say 3050, or just before the clan invasion, is best.

[Haakon Valravn]

When it comes to Assault 'Mechs, I like symmetry. There's just something about paired Gauss rifles/AC20s with paired PPCs/LgLsrs/LRM20s, paired O/U PPCs, &c.

Course, I don't usually drive Assaults, but ClanTech 75-ton heavies are the same. Just faster and with fewer weapons.

For anything lighter, I like the idea of one big gun, backed by secondary and tertiary armaments. I especially like designs, like the reseen Marauder, where the maingun is buried in the heavily-armored torso. I do not mind symmetry in 'Mechs where that makes a lot of sense, though, like the Catapult, JagerMech, and Rifleman. But as a rule, I prefer asym.

Voted 3060, because I'm not familiar with any Tech later than that date. And only vaguely familiar with 3060 Tech. (MRMs, ATMs, RACs, Heavy Lasers?)

[JadeTimberwolf]

As far as Symmetry, it really doesn't matter me, it is more dependent on the individual mech. I personally have always enjoyed level 3 tech over level 1 or 2 because of some of the interesting if not effective designs I have been able to make using it so I guess 3085.

[Steamroller Stig]

ehh as long as a mech is proportioned well I don't see an aesthetic issue with an asymmetrical design.

the real question here should be humanoid verse non-humanoid. I personally cant stand humanoid mechs.

[Steel Talon]

My GAUSS ... Your Face!!!

symetrical FTW

Edited by steel talon, 12 May 2012 - 11:39 AM.

[DaZur]

Terick, on 12 May 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

I have to ask then...

Why do you have a Zeus (different arm weapons and hence different arms) in your signature?

Actually in page one I reference this...

I love the Mech... and tolerate its asymmetry. (Kind'a like being married to a woman who has... shall we say, "​an irritating habit") That said, most of my other favorite Mechs are symmetrical.

[Arbhall Sommers]

My fave out of the book mech is the picture of a wholey asymetrical design, the Black Python (or Viper in the IS designation). 75 tons, 85 kph, 2 large pulse lazers, 2 med pulse lazers, 4 small pulse lazers, a pair of machine guns, and guided by a targeting computer. Out to 600 meters its as effective as most IS assault mechs, and at 360 meters it outshines mechs 10 tons heavier than it is.
At ranges of less than 100 meters it can easily strip bare nearly any mechs leg in a single volley. It is a killer, and an elegant mech. I love it to pieces.

[Eradicator]

TIL theres almost 0 difference between a hatamoto chi and a thug :\

[Owl Cutter]

What are you talking about‽  The Hatamoto looks like a cheesy cartoon mecha, while the Thug looks like an ambulatory battle brick!  
I agree with the Stig in that I definitely prefer non-humanoid over humanoid by far, and it doesn't help that I am ecclectic and all you humanoids look alike to me, but it's not a deal-breaker for me.  
Since the question is about left-right physical symmetry versus asymmetry, my preference is for a variety of both styles.  I really don't dislike either aesthetic, so my taste for variety weighs most heavily, but since that might sound like a cop-out answer...  Now that I think about it, I prefer the highly asymmetric "whatever we could put together" look, kinda like the Millennium Falcon (Much of my fondness for the AWS is due to the antenna on the head, BTW...) but balanced so it's not horribly lopsided, and generally solid-looking and brick-like since it's supposed to be made for battle.  My aesthetic preference is strongly for my favourite single style to coexist with "sexy" achiral designs and "ugly" lopsided abominations, since the character of something is emphasised by the existence of other things with different character, but in practice my own designs end up with a strong bias toward chiral  layouts mainly due to practical preferences, even for assault monsters where I could easily have it look totally achiral, totally lopsided or anywhere in between, because there is so much room to choose and place weapons.  
For example, say I have room for two big long-range can-openers like PPC (or Gauss Rifles in a higher-tech setting) and a pile of short-range blender blades like Medium Lasers and/or SRM racks.  I would rather have some of each group be in the arms for improved field of fire and some be in the torso for less chance of losing it, and also split each group between the left and right sides because I'd rather lose some of each than all of one- so the first type goes in the left arm and right torso, the other group mostly in the left torso and right arm.  
This is further encouraged by my fetish for stuff with minimum ranges, which makes it especially important to put some of each weapon type in the torso, and my preference for range to correlate positively with serving size so weapons work efficiently together, so it's also important for me to have some of each type in the arms since bug 'mechs stab from short range but also are most vulnerable to concentrated lumps.  
I seem most fond of a medium 'mech, I guess in part because only fitting one big gun allows high asymmetry without bothersome pessimality of the Turkina's layout.  (twin LB 5-X in one arm, twin ER PPC in the other, twin LRM-15 racks in the side torsos)

To continue along a tangent others have started off on, I prefer chunky-looking bricky things to frail bird-like things, but still like the Marauder IIC because it's just so goofy and weird.  I like my bipeds reverse-jointed like that MAD-IIC and its evil sibling the Warhawk, but adore a lot of funny bipeds like the Matador and Yeoman- even if only from a purely visual aesthetic perspective.  I prefer quads radially arranged like the Stalking Spider and Fire Scorpion rather than the chordate-like arrangement of the Fire Stallion- though I still like the Fire Stallion, again just because it makes me giggle.  

Ramien, on 11 May 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

</p>
3050 and asymmetrical mechs for me. The Hunchback is the Hunchback because of that asymmetry. The Hunchback IIC shouldn't even be called a Hunchback anymore, since it loses the hunch. Any specialist mech like the Raven that uses TAG or NARC beacons are going to be at least somewhat asymmetrical, since those systems aren't usually redundant. About the only thing that I really have to see symmetrical are the arrangements of jump jets on any mechs that have them.

I agree re: jump jets. I like the way the SRM-6, SSRM-4, Narc launcher, MML-5, and MRM-10 all weigh 3 tons.  Maybe House Kurita has a thing for balanced asymmetry, too.

Edited by Owl Cutter, 12 May 2012 - 11:16 PM.

[Youngblood]

I'd like to post here to disagree with the observation of 'Mechs becoming more symmetrical as the game timeline progressed. I'd have to say that as simple designs started to wear themselves out as the years went by, it took the out-of-universe writers more effort to come up with new, original 'Mech designs. The designs in these newer TROs had to pack a much greater variety of weapons and art design concepts than before, to keep things fresh. As such, we've gotten recent designs like the Penthesilea and the Omen, the likes of which carry very...eclectic weapon mixes.

I think the OP's taking experience from a few major offenders in the timeline, which I believe are pioneered by designs like the Mad Cat Prime, and a great majority of the 'Mechs in TRO 3058 (quite possibly the most boring TRO ever). Do be advised though, I'd have to say my favorite 'Mechs in latter BattleTech eras are almost all asymmetrical.

[Eradicator]

Owl Cutter, on 12 May 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

What are you talking about‽ The Hatamoto looks like a cheesy cartoon mecha, while the Thug looks like an ambulatory battle brick!

oh im sorry i wasnt talking about appearance i was talking about their loadouts which are symmetrical and their engine speeds are the identical: pair of ppcs and srm6's look it up

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Thug
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Hatamoto-Chi

[Yeach]

Difference between the Hatamoto-Chi and Thug is that the Thug uses doubleheatsinks and the Chi uses singles.
Yup thats the only statistical difference.

[Flame]

I chose asymmetrical simply because a good many of the 'Mechs I use or admire on a regular basis are asymmetrical. The Barghest is asymmetrical in weapons loadout but is still a very aesthetically-pleasing design, whereas the Verfolger is twisted like Quasimodo but still carrie a very nice array of weapons. Not that I don't like symmetrical designs as well; in my opinion the Fafnir is one of the most beautiful 'Mechs out there in terms of its functional aesthetic.

(My preferred timeline is around TRO:3067, if you hadn't guessed from three of the four 'Mechs listed above......)

[SilentSooYun]

I prefer simple, old-school 3025, back when everyone used equal tech and Light battles were fast and furious affairs. I'm not overly fond of the Clans or the whole 3050 "unbalanced arms race" atmosphere; too much change all at once, and it's too easy for the biggest guns to win.

As for symetrical/asymetrical, it honestly doen't matter to me. On the whole, though, I think I prefer symetrical with asymetrical elements... like the Warhammer with it's searchlight and six-pack on an otherwise symetrical chassis, or the Phoenix Hawk with it's hand-carried Large Laser. Symetry is more asthetically pleasing, but the asymetrical elements allow more flexibility to one's loadout.

[Calvin Vakarian]

8100d 5p4tt3r, on 11 May 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

The miniture, the MW3 model and the TRO of the Cauldron Born has a symetrical chassis, just the pods themselves might not be.

I don't recommend using MW4 as a reliable point of reference for Battletech Mechs.

Either way does it realy matter?

I want a mech that has decent capabilities. Cosemetics are meh, though a fearsome (asymetrical) look can be fear inducing if not a large mech.

[DaZur]

One of the reasons I tend to lean toward symmetry (Stop looking at my signature... That one don't count!) is I appreciate redundancy in my load-out.

I appreciate knowing that if I lose one of my primary weapons, I have another at the ready in the other side. With asymmetrical designs it's too easy to have one of your engagement ranges hobbled and or outright nullified with a single disabling hit.

If say I lose the LRM15 on my Zeus... I'm left with a large laser and and a dinky A/C5 (assuming I'm running stock) which severely diminishes my ability attack at range.